Catherine McKenna

[Impact Assessment Act, June 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I was really pleased that the committee had time to do a thorough review of Bill C-69 and to make many thoughtful amendments. There were more than 80 witnesses and more than 100 submissions over a two-month review, and the quality of the amendments actually speaks to the rigour with which they were received. I am proud to say that our government supports the amendments.

We believe that this process is better for farmers. We believe the process is better for industry. We believe the process is better for indigenous peoples. We believe the process is better for folks who believe in science and making decisions based on evidence and facts. We believe, overall, that it will be a better process that will not only rebuild trust, but also ensure that good projects go ahead in a timely way.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my parliamentary secretary for all the hard work he has done in rebuilding public trust and restoring transparency.

The amendments and Bill C-69 would provide additional clarity and safeguards so that Canadians can have confidence in reviews of major projects. When we look at transparency, the bill requires assessment reports to incorporate a broader range of information, including a summary of comments received, recommendations on mitigation measures and follow-up, and the agency's rationale and conclusions. It requires that public comments provided during a project's reviews be made available online and that the information posted online be maintained so that it can be accessed over time. It is critically important that Canadians have an opportunity to provide input, that they have an opportunity to see what folks have said about environmental assessment, and that people understand how a decision was made.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we believe that when we make project decisions, we need to consider the impacts and make sure that good projects go ahead in a timely fashion with regulatory certainty.

Based on feedback that we heard from indigenous peoples, industry stakeholders, and the broader public during committee hearings, as well as from parliamentarians and the government, some 130 amendments were made. Amendments were a valuable part of the legislative process and the very reason the legislation was sent to committee for study. We listened to committee members. We listened to witnesses. We listened to other parliamentarians. Together, I am very proud that we helped to strengthen the bill.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned at committee yesterday, unsurprisingly the Conservatives are once again engaging in delay tactics by moving to delete every single clause of the act with not one substantive amendment. This has happened every step of the way, including at second reading. At committee, the opposition repeatedly refused additional meetings within the timeline established, and Conservative MPs delayed consideration of clause-by-clause.

Despite these actions, our government will ensure that we restore public trust, that we protect the environment, that we introduce modern safeguards, that we advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples and, of course, that we ensure that good projects go ahead and we get our resources to market. That is why we are taking appropriate steps to ensure that Bill C-69 moves forward.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit confused, because the member opposite suggests that the NDP would have just brought in legislation without consulting, yet at the same time the NDP members are wondering why we did not listen to people. In fact, we actually did.

Let us consider this: we started with interim principles, which I and the Minister of Natural Resources introduced in January 2016. This was the first step in rebuilding trust and making sure we were making decisions based on science, knowledge, and evidence, taking into account the greenhouse gas emissions. We then had two expert committees, which were reporting to me and to the Minister of Natural Resources. There were two parliamentary committees that worked with the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We continued to consult, and then we produced a discussion paper, which we consulted on again. I met directly with indigenous peoples, environmentalists, and industry many times.

We think we have a good outcome. We listened to folks and we were willing to take amendments, and we think we have an amazing bill.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. It is always a pleasure to appear before committee and talk about how we are advancing what we need to do, which is to figure out how we can make sure good projects go ahead. We know that we need to do that through very robust assessments.

However, in terms of what we have heard and what was reflected from a number of people, the focus is on how we ensure that good projects can go ahead with both regulatory certainty and clear timelines.

Our goal is one project, one review. We are streamlining the process and coordinating with the provinces and territories. We know this is very important in reducing red tape for companies and to avoid duplicating efforts, which we do not want to see.

We are making the process more predictable and timely. We are clarifying the process to engage stakeholders effectively and to identify potential issues with projects up front. These federal rules would actually increase regulatory certainty and clarity. I heard directly from CEOs and resource companies about the importance of having certainty of process. They also want to make sure that there is a process that is robust, and that is exactly what we are doing.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has it all wrong. We need good projects to go ahead, but in order to do that, we need a robust process that has the trust of Canadian people, and that is exactly what we did. The fact that the committee considered and approved amendments demonstrates a willingness that the previous government did not have. It was not willing to listen to people or find ways to make improvements that were recommended by indigenous peoples, industry, or environmentalists.

We are about finding solutions. We are about coming together, and of course we are about making sure that we get good legislation through, which is exactly what we are doing.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to talk about Bill C-69. While we might not always agree on every point, it is important to note that the committee passed a number of opposition amendments and there were a significant number that received unanimous support. I would like to highlight some of those.

There was a key amendment proposed by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that was supported by committee members. It clearly reflected the government's strong commitment to science, and it was clearly very important. Liberal members also took into account NDP amendments in drafting the amendments. The member opposite spoke about reflecting the importance of the UNDRIP. That was really key.

Many amendments in relation to indigenous peoples were passed. This bills clarifies that indigenous knowledge would be considered and would not be limited to traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples. A number of amendments would strengthen the protection of indigenous knowledge. We know this is very important to indigenous peoples.

There were many other amendments that I am sure I will have the chance to talk about.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member and all members of the committee for their very thorough review of Bill C-69 and the many thoughtful amendments.

The committee heard from over 80 witnesses and reviewed over 150 submissions over two months, and the quality and scope of the amendments speak to the rigour with which they reviewed the bill. I am very pleased to say our government is supporting these amendments.

We need to do better. Canadians elected us because they wanted to make sure we demonstrated that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. With Bill C-69, we knew we needed to rebuild trust that was sorely lacking because of the Conservatives' actions in gutting our environmental assessment process, so I am very pleased that we have come together and are going to be able to rebuild trust, because it is so critical that we get good projects going ahead after a thorough environmental assessment.

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 1st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, pricing carbon is widely recognized as an efficient way to reduce emissions at lowest cost to business and consumers and support innovation and clean growth. Carbon pricing sends an important signal to markets and provides incentives to reduce energy use through conservation and efficiency measures. For these reasons, carbon pricing is a central pillar of the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, the PCF, signed by first ministers in December 2016.

Over 80% of Canadians already live in a jurisdiction that has a price on carbon pollution. In order to extend this throughout Canada, in October 2016 the Prime Minister announced the pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution. This gives provinces and territories the flexibility to implement the type of system that makes sense for their circumstances: either an explicit price-based system, such as British Columbia’s carbon tax or Alberta’s carbon levy and performance-based emissions system, or cap and trade, such as in place in Quebec and Ontario. It also sets some common criteria that all systems must meet to ensure they are fair and effective. For explicit price-based systems, the carbon price is a minimum of $10 per tonne of greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions in 2018, increasing $10 per tonne GHGs annually to $50 per tonne in 2022. Additional information on the pan-Canadian approach is available at https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/news/2016/10/canadian-approach-pricing-carbon-pollution.html.

The federal government also committed to develop and implement a federal carbon pricing backstop system. This will only apply in any province or territory that requests it or that does not have a carbon pricing system in place in 2018 that meets the benchmark. The proposed federal carbon pricing system consists of two elements:a charge on fossil fuels that is generally payable by fuel producers or distributors; and a performance-based system for GHG emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industrial facilities to minimize competitiveness risks while ensuring a carbon price signal and incentive to reduce GHG emissions.

All direct revenue from the federal carbon pricing system will be returned to the jurisdiction of origin. Additional information on the proposed federal system is available at https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/news/2018/01/government_of_canadareleasesfurtherdetailsonfederalcarbon-pollut.html.

No decisions have been made about where the federal system will apply. Provinces have until September 1, 2018 to confirm their plans for pricing carbon pollution.

The Government of Canada released a paper on April 30, 2018, on the estimated results of the federal carbon pollution pricing system. This is available online at https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-action/pricing-carbon-pollution/estimated-impacts-federal-system.html.

It is based on an illustrative, hypothetical scenario in which the four provinces with carbon pricing systems today, British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, representing 80% of Canada’s population, meet the federal standard through 2022, and the other nine provinces and territories implement the federal carbon pricing system.

It finds that carbon pricing will make a significant contribution towards meeting Canada’s greenhouse gas reduction target. A price on carbon could cut carbon pollution across Canada by 80 to 90 million tonnes in 2022, once all provinces and territories have systems that meet the federal standard. This is equivalent to taking 23 million to 26 million cars off the road for a year or shutting down 20 to 23 coal-fired power plants for a year. Without this contribution, more costly regulatory interventions would be needed to meet our target.

The Government of Canada’s approach to pricing carbon pollution will ensure that GHG emissions are reduced, and Canadians are well placed to benefit from the opportunities created by the global transition under way.